Across the entire political spectrum,
altruism is the common element that clears the way for both the right
and the left to devastate freedom and individualism. Socialists,
welfare-state paternalists, Christian conservatives, public employee
unions and politicians seeking to make their constituents dependent on
them for all of their needs unite under the banner of altruism. There
is no principle of political philosophy, no economic law, no proven
efficiency of free markets or proven incompetence of government, no
American value, that is not trumped by altruism. Any government action
purporting to be a sacrifice for the good of others is generally
sanctioned -- even when in fact the proposal will help kill those it
is supposed to help while making life miserable for everyone
else. That is why supporters of reason, freedom and individualism
should always take altruism on directly.

Ralston notes
further, regarding specific policy development
that:

Because the transition from the current regulated
mess governments have created will be long and difficult, it is also
necessary to take notice of not just the unprincipled and immoral
foundations of the present corrupt system, but of the huge amount of
misinformation in circulation about current needs and
realities.

In this context, while policy options must
always refer back to correct principles, in any given instance it is
the direction of policy that often should be considered. Is the
direction more government controls, regulations, bureaucracy and
spending, or less? If less, a proposed reform might be appropriate if
it is not proposed in conjunction with regression to more
government.

For example, the Medicare Prescription Drug
legislation of 2003 was a horrible expansion of government health care
-- the largest in 40 years. It did include a pitiful few helpful
features such as the expansion of Health Savings Accounts and some
paltry choices for private insurance options within Medicare. Neither
of those features justified passage of the legislation. But now that
we are burdened with the program, it is appropriate to build on those
features to push in the direction of more private options in health
care and to build a constituency for free markets. Exempting
individual health care expenses from income tax is fine, but of course
not ultimately a reason to maintain income taxes at all. We can take
advantage of limited opportunities for progress on the road back to
freedom in medicine only if our goals remain firmly rooted in the
right principles.

I'll end by noting that Ralston soon
after takes on the numerous fallacies about health care, starting with
my "favorite," "The quality of health care in America is ranked lower
than 36 other countries." The answers to this and the numerous others
are succinct and get straight to the heart of the matter in every
case.

"[T]wo thirds of Palestinians in a recent poll expressed their support
for the wave of [knife, gun, and vehicular attacks] attacks."
-- Elan Journo, in "Culpability
for Palestinian Aggression" at The Times of
Israel

"A healthy and rational person cannot experience genuine happiness or
self-esteem if popularity and social status are his or her primary
motivations." -- Michael Hurd, in "So Is It WHAT You Know ... Or
WHO You Know?" at The Delaware Coast Press

Bernie Trump -- or Donald
Sanders?

Should the major parties nominate their
respective worst candidates for the general election, we will have
the non-choice
of an avowed socialist who wants to turn
America into Denmark and a
de facto fascist who want to do the same:

Well,
actually, the package Trump offers --
"save
Social Security without cuts," a vaguely pro-single-payer position
on health care, plus temporarily banning Muslims and walling off
Mexico -- bears an eerie resemblance to the Danish government's
current policy mix.

...

Like many American
admirers of Scandinavian welfare states, Sanders lacks detailed
knowledge of how those systems work, or an appreciation for certain
cultural peculiarities that make cradle-to-grave welfarism politically
sustainable there but not, so far, here.

Regarding what
one pundit has called Trump's "hostile takeover of the Republican
Party," that makes perfect sense in retrospect. The GOP has for
decades professed allegiance to capitalism, while, at best only
slowing down the Democrats -- but usually emulating them. It was
really only a matter of time before someone saw this spinelessness and
decided to take full advantage of it.

2 comments:

Steve D
said...

'Should the major parties nominate their respective worst candidates for the general election, we will have the non-choice of an avowed socialist who wants to turn America into Denmark and a de facto fascist who want to do the same:'

Interesting. In the last four elections, near the beginning of the primaries, I picked out the worst nominee for each party. In all eight cases my pick for the worst was nominated. (8 out of 8). It reminds me of the leaders at the end of the Roman Empire.

This time, the Republican worst is obvious but Hillary's treason and selling of secrets to our enemies is making it difficult to decide on my Democrat worst choice.